Talk:Alfred Verdross/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 19:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this one, beginning with the sources and moving on to spotchecks and then prose. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Source comments:
 * Optional at the GA level, but very helpful; supply translated titles for non-English sources.
 * Again, optional at the GA level, but suggest trimming the further reading.
 * I note the heavy use of the Kniefacz & Mühlberger. I'm hampered by not knowing German, but it seems to be a source published by the University of Vienna, Verdross's employer; and it's not clear how much editorial oversight is applied. As such I think it's an acceptable source for non-controversial material, but not for anything that could be promoting the subject.
 * We should not generally use works from the article subject unless they are absolutely necessary for biographical detail; for explaining the subject's views, secondary sources are necessary, because it is difficult to demonstrate that you are not cherry-picking quotes.


 * supply translated titles ✅
 * trimming the further reading. I'd like to think about this. Having an almost complete overview of the secondary literature on Verdross can be useful for academic research purposes. Most of the sources listed are of high quality and potentially significant for those interested in the subject.
 * heavy use of the Kniefacz & Mühlberger. I have examined all 18 quotations from K&M. Most of them are purely factual and non-controversial. Those that are evaluative or controversial are not promotional but rather critical. In particular, they are very explicit about his "quasi-Nazi" past: "Verdross never joined the NSDAP, but was an early sympathiser with National Socialism and was active in DNSAP circles even after the party was outlawed in 1933"; "He openly declared his nationalist and Catholic views, and was popular among German nationalist and national socialist students. He often intervened on their behalf"; "He managed to come to terms with the Nazi government"; "After the end of World War II, Verdross continued his career without undergoing the denazification process".
 * None of this can be seen as an attempt to promote the subject. The source seems reliable to me, but if there are any doubts about this they should be clarified, because it is a source I have relied on extensively.
 * Having looked through the content, I would generally agree. I will note again that I do not speak German, and cannot sweep for sources in that language; but as best as I can tell the article does not shy away from documenting Verdross's ties to Nazism. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We should not generally use works from the article subject. You're absolutely right, but the article uses Verdross as a source only to provide verbatim quotations from passages that have been selected as relevant by secondary sources. So, the book calls Mussolini a defender of Christian values, characterises the National Socialist doctrine of international law as "anti-imperalist and federalist", and contains significant traces of a völkisch approach to legal studies and international politics is supported by secondary sources (Bernstorff 2010; Staudigl-Ciechowicz and Olechowski 2014; Simma 1995; Carty 1995) that refer to the passages quoted in notes 2 and 3 (excerpts from Verdross 1937). Analogously, citation n. 61 is Mannoni 1999, p. 267, who is quoting from Verdross 1928, p. 314. This is why Verdross 1928 and Verdross 1937 are listed in the "References" section - no "cherry-picking" on my part is involved. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * About quotations specifically; if those passages are used in secondary sources, then usually you can just cite those? But this is a good rationale, and I have no further issue with it. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I could limit myself to quoting secondary sources, but I thought it might be informative for the reader to include verbatim quotations from those passages that were selected as particularly sensitive/relevant by the secondary sources - passages that basically concern the delicate issue of Verdross's relationship with Nazism. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You make a fair point, and I agree with your decision. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You make a fair point, and I agree with your decision. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Optional at the GA level; where you use multiple citations, make sure they are ordered numerically.
 * I'm not sure I understand this. Do you mean that when there are multiple citations (e.g. "...the son of the then lieutenant and later general of the Austro-Hungarian army, Ignaz Verdroß von Droßberg", followed by three citations), they should be ordered alphabetically or chronologically? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean if you have, for instance, "... where he served as a member of the Law Faculty until his retirement in 1961. where he served as a member of the Law Faculty until his retirement in 1961.[11][1]" switch the citations, so they are displayed [1][11]. Does that make sense? It's just the ordering of notes in the text. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it makes sense, thank you - I have done it . Perhaps we should consider whether bundling multiple citations per WP:CITEBUNDLE would be a good idea. I don't know if it's worth it, though, because to bundle multiple citations I would need to switch from to  (at least where the citations are bundled, if not everywhere in the text for consistency). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You could do that, but I don't personally like that style, and in case it would be entirely optional at the GA level.


 * Moving to spotchecks:
 * FN8 checks out as to content, I cannot access precise page numbers (OUP gives me the text as a web page).
 * FN29 checks out. There's a lot of material in Amorosa that could be used to flesh out that section if needed.
 * FN32 checks out.
 * FN38 stops short of saying "incompatible with the ideology of the regime", instead just pointing to his ideology, but there's a second footnote there and I don't see an issue overall.
 * FN42 checks out.
 * I don't see anything about norms on p4 of Bernstorff: am I missing something? There are other footnotes there, however.
 * Yes, this is FN52. Many of his contributions to the study of international law are based on Kelsen's theory of law and the state, which Verdross largely embraced... is supported by Bernstorff 2010, p. 4 ("Verdross, who had endeavored already during the war to transfer to international law the foundations of the Kelsenian notion of law and the state as laid out in “Hauptprobleme”). As for the second part of the sentemce, ...including the idea of the unity of law, the hierarchical structure of the legal system (so-called Stufenbau [de]) and the concept of basic norm (Grundnorm), I think it is supported by the other references there provided (FN53, 54 and 55). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is another instance where I would suggest reworking to use one citation per sentence, but it's okay as it stands at the GA level. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * FN71 checks out as to content, as above.
 * FN80 checks out.
 * Other award citations check out.
 * Given that I only found a single problem, I'm not going to spot-check German sources; I don't speak German, and as such I don't see the need to spend a considerable amount of effort with translation.
 * Moving to prose. I am making copy-edits as I go; please let me know if I mess something up, and feel free to revert and discuss as needed.
 * As a reader I find it surprising that, after passing the exam needed to enter the legal services (I presume?) in 1916, two years later he was advising the drafters of the Weimar constitution as an expert; it feels like I'm missing context. This isn't strictly a GA-level issue, but it would be nice to have.
 * good point, well spotted. I made this edit . Unfortunately I don't have much contextual information to offer because all I know is what I read in Stolleis 2004, p. 56: "The preliminary debate between 9 and 12 December 1918 included representatives from the SPD and the USPD, the scholar of international law Alfred Verdoß (1890-1980) as the Austrian representative, and Max Weber as a scholarly expert, with other experts to follow". I dropped the reference to Max Weber because at the time he was much more influential than the young Verdross) and I added that Verdross was there in his capacity of representative of the Austrian government. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's better; not completely explained, but if the sources don't discuss it there isn't anything to be done. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The notable works section in the infobox is really rather long. I would personally dump the parameter altogether; but for it to have any use it should be distinct from the bibliography, not a replicate thereof.


 * May I request translations for German terms used inline, such as the journal titles?
 * ✅ (I found just one title though)


 * "When the democratic constitution was suspended in 1933" we need more links/explanation here; I daresay I've read more 20th century European history than the vast majority of our non-European readers, and I still don't know what that refers to.
 * I added the parenthesis right after that sentence: so-called "self-elimination of Parliament". The linked article explains everything. Also one of the quoted sources (Seidl-Hohenveldern 1995, p. 99) says: "In 1933-1934, the Austrian Government had to face National Socialist attempts to take over the country. The price to be paid to Mussolini for his active and, at that time, efficient support of Austrian independence was the suppression of Austria's democratic institutions". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree the linked article explains things; but I still feel you could expand slightly more, because a reader shouldn't have to click away to understand this article. I would suggest something like "Austria moved decisively toward an autocratic fascist state when Chancellor Dolfuss began ruling by decree after the self- elimination of parliament in 1933. Verdross was offered a position as Minister of Justice, but refused..."
 * Excellent ✅


 * "He agreed to join the Fatherland Front only on the condition that he would not renounce" similar issue. Why was he being asked to join a party? weren't (pardon my ignorance) the austrofascists in favor of Anschluss with Germany, and if so, why did he have to renounce anything? I'm not trying to be difficult here; it just feels like this was written by someone very familiar with the underlying context, which most readers are not.
 * The point is that the Austrofascists were not at all in favor of Anschluss; they wanted an independent Austria. Mussolini even promised Schuschnigg that he would guarantee Austria's independence, and so the Anschluss was a huge diplomatic blow for fascist Italy: Mussolini bowed his head and it marked the end of Austrofascism. Dollfuss had already been assassinated by a group of Austrian Nazis in 1934. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Two suggestions to make this clearer; add that the front was Dolfuss's party, and that it was an austrian nationalist party. The gloss should take care of it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * "The role of Verdross in the age of National Socialism is controversial in scholarly literature." I don't fully understand what this means; I also don't love it as a first sentence, because it sounds defensive (I don't imply that you intend it that way, only that it reads that way to an unfamiliar reader). I would suggest that the most NPOV manner to write this section is to begin with what is known definitively, and then move on to what is controversial.
 * Speaking of; it isn't obvious what is controversial, in the literal sense of still being a matter of debate. Everything that follows in this subsection appears to be established fact? If his sympathy for nazism colored how people view his scholarly work, that should be covered, but not in this section.
 * Similarly; I think the second paragraph of the National socialism section needs to be moved down. Here is my suggested reorganization, which I've self-reverted since the details are not mandatory; other methods may be devised.
 * This entire subsection needs terminology fleshed out a little. You shouldn't use acronyms without defining them, and I would suggest that in popular parlance "National Socialism" isn't as readily identified with Nazism as in academic circles: I would use the latter term whenever possible. If you think a definition is too long for the text, put it in a footnote. The national socialism vs nazism contrast is particularly jarring when you use nazi in reference to the student attack.
 * This is tricky and I will think about this (not about the Nazism vs National Socialism thing: I'm fine with Nazism, as you suggest). My instinctive reply is that everything I included belongs to the "established facts" realm (as far as I know - if the sources are truthful) but the information you got from it - "his sympathy for nazism", you say - is not an established fact at all, and is precisely the issue that is controversial and debatable. No doubt, he had early sympathies for Nazism (Kniefacz & Mühlberger 2014 say) and he was a right-wing pan-Germanist, but he never joined the NSDAP - he never took a party membership card, which at the time was not trivial. We can say with certainty that Verdross was not a Nazi, and yet he agreed to make compromises with the regime - how to evaluate these compromises, and whether it was right or wrong to continue teaching at the university and participating in public life under a dictatorship, is not easy to say. Kelsen was angry with Verdross because he kicked him out of the editorship of the journal even before the Anschluss, but he felt that Verdross's compromises with the regime were inevitable and not condemnable: "It is true that I was somewhat disgruntled. I was upset that I was forced to resign as the main editor of the Zeitschrift für oeffentliches Recht even before the Anschluss. I was also of the opinion that you had gone too far with certain political value judgements in your Voelkerrecht - which is by far the best presentation of the subject in the German language. But I have never blamed you in the least for staying in the homeland and have always fully understood that this was not possible without making certain concessions." (Busch 2012, p=163) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can see that it's tricky. Nonetheless, I think the section begins in a manner that sounds defensive and is therefore not aiding the cause of neutrality. I think that sentence needs reworking, and I still suggest moving it to the end. To convey the meaning you suggest, I would phrase it as ...the exact extent of Verdross's sympathy for Nazism remains debated, and his relationship with the fascist government is a matter of controversy." I would prefer combining such an edit with my example reorganization above. At the moment the section feels a little scattered. You do also recognize the lead says he sympathised with Nazism? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * "at the time an SA member and later a war hero" "War Hero" is not a term we ought to use for a literal storm trooper; I would genuinely question its use for anybody.
 * "War hero" was in the quoted source (Busch 2012, pp. 141–142: Bald darauf schlug er die Berufsoffizierslaufbahn ein und avancierte im 2. Weltkrieg als Fallschirmjäger-Offizier zum „Kriegshelden“), but I agree it's WP:UNDUE in the context of an article on Verdross: it doesn't provide any relevant information on the subject of the article. Removed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * "In a 1931 contribution to the Festschrift für Hans Kelsen zum 50" I suggest that the name of the conference here can be omitted for concision, but if you feel it warrants inclusion, it needs to be translated out of scholarese; the average reader does not know what a festschrift is, and many English speakers will miss Kelsen's name in the middle.


 * "Thus, he dismissed the Kelsenian notion " The two sentences beginning thus is very dense; and I say this while noting that the rest of the doctrine section is actually very comprehensible to the layperson.
 * ✅ Please check that the text I've inserted is actually an improvement. I did not understand why you mention "two sentences"; I modified the sentence (actually the whole paragraph) starting with Thus, he dismissed the Kelsenian notion. Did I miss something? Thanks Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I wasn't clear; the fragment I still have concerns over is "In filling the Kelsenian basic norm with determinate normative content, namely that of the fundamental principles of law, Verdross relied on the notion of a shared legal consciousness (Rechtsbewuẞtsein) of the peoples of the world," I think you could afford to simplify here.


 * In an article on a figure this influential, I would expect to see a legacy section or equivalent; I haven't looked, but I would be very surprised to learn there is not material on Verdross's influence after his time.


 * That's more or less it, but I've suggested the inclusion of an extra section and the reorganization of another, so I assume you will need a bit of time to work on this; please ping me when you're done. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * One further comment on the lead; for similar concerns about defensiveness, I would suggest switching the following sentence around. "Despite being an early sympathiser with Nazism, he never joined the Nazi party." -> He was a pan-German nationalist and an early sympathizer with Nazism, but did not formally join the Nazi party."
 * ✅, but I have dropped the "formally" because it might suggest that the decision not to join the Nazi party was only "formal", irrelevant, and that in his heart he essentially subscribed to Nazism. On the contrary, it's likely that that decision for a man in his position was difficult and costly, and at the time was probably the strongest opposition that could be expressed without losing one's job and status. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is okay. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I reorganised the section "Relationship with Nazism" and included a new section "Legacy". What do you think, is this more or less what you were thinking about? I'm sure there's room for improvement. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Much improved, thank you. I've passed the article; I'm sure we could discuss the precise wording further if we wished but this meets the criteria as it stands. Thank you for your patience with my quibbles. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)